OpenSSL GPL conflict (was: Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException)
fw at fwright.net
Sat Apr 17 02:25:25 UTC 2021
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2021, at 20:33, Fred Wright wrote:
>> For that matter, IMO this whole business of the OpenSSL license
>> conflicting with the GPL is a bunch of nonsense (at least in the
>> typical MacPorts scenario). Since when does *dynamically* linking
>> against an *unbundled* shared library constitute "redistribution" of
>> said library? And if anyone tries to claim that merely including the
>> bits necessary to link against the library is "redistribution", the
>> recent SCOTUS ruling in Oracle v. Google should put that to rest.
> Since you're now asking a different question than what I was asking,
> let's retitle the thread.
> I'm not aware of the Oracle / Google ruling.
They ruled in favor of Google, meaning that copying Oracle's Java header
files to use in conjunction with Google's Java implementation did not
constitute a violation of Oracle's copyright. Essentially they said that
APIs aren't copyrightable.
> The reason why the OpenSSL license and GPL conflict, unless an exception
> is granted, when the OpenSSL is not part of the operating system, is
> explained here:
Yes, I'm aware of that alleged explanation. But the key point is that it
relates to the *redistribution* of OpenSSL, and I contend that merely
dynamically linking against a non-bundled OpenSSL library does not
constitute "redistribution" of said library, and hence the alleged
conflict is inapplicable.
More information about the macports-dev